Do you believe the Radical Republicans plotted to overthrow Andrew Johnson’s Presidency and replace him with one of their own so they could control the Executive and have their agenda rubber-stamped? Do you believe this makes them seditionists?

The law disagrees with your emotional interpretation. They are not seditionist traitors. They are men who were rightfully concerned for their country. As they should have been, given the data being presented to them via Trump and his actions and statements. Coupled with the actions of people working directly on his behalf. And finally, given all they knew about Russia’s unprecedented attack on our nation for one man’s sole benefit.

We get it. He is your favorite politician so you have an emotional investment in defending him and attacking those that threaten him. But honestly, step back, remove your emotion, and try to view this through an unemotional lens for a moment. I have to imagine you’ll see your accusations of their discussion equating to an attempt at overthrowing the government to be inaccurate on its face.

Where is the logic? Where is the rational development of conclusions? They seem nonexistent in your position. Why?

Who made a determination they are lying? Surely you can understand a difference of interpretation of events. Especially given the level of concern being faced. I have never had reason to question your past as you’ve documented here regarding your service. You of all people have to know that interpretation of events vary from man to man in extraordinary situations.

John Freerick who was one of the chief architects of the 25 amendment said. The senators who signed the provision into law specified that declaring the president unfit must rely on reliable facts regarding the president’s physical or mental faculties, not personal prejudice. During the debates, it’s was clear that policy and political differences are not included, unpopularity is not included, poor judgment, incompetence, laziness, or impeachable conduct none of that is intended to be covered by the 25 amendment.
Sounds to me that they intended for the vice president and congress to have to provide proof that the president was unable to preform the duties of his office. It also sounds like they didn’t intend for this amendment to be used instead of impeachment proceeding for a president that had broken the law.

Nobody was attempting to overthrow an election. Being God-wedded to a President doesn’t mean he’s perfect or invulnerable to being removed with reason. And that’s what they were examining

…to you my friend. I care about us. If I am to use your term of God-wedded, it’s to my country, my family, my friends, my community and my responsibilities. I believe they were…and I expect there will be an investigation that will expose it for all to see. Then I can say…I told ya so.